Draft Laws for Mars - Laws for the Peaceful Settlement of Mars

soph · 2003-04-14 19:38:57

There's gun control, a standing army, and wars without an actual declaration of war by congress. These all violate the constitution.

None of those violate the Constitution. Your lack of knowledge about the Constitution is quite telling, as well.

Gun control does not violate the Constitution, as long as people can own guns, which they most undoubtedely can.

A standing army is allowed, as long as they do not quarter in American civilian homes, which they don't.

The President has the right to 90 days of military action without Congressional approval.

The post wasn't really anti-american, though I am very proud to be anti-american.. since american seems to be defined as a supporter of police state militarism.

Well, I'm not anti-France, although the French government seems to be devoted to going against America and protecting its own oil interests lately. But if you feel the need to be anti-American, that's not my choice.

America hasn't been the cleanest country, but neither has France, Germany, Russia, and any other major power. In fact, compared to European nations, and Russia, China, etc. we are relatively clean. Stalin killed 30+ million people in Russia. Hitler killed 12+ million in Germany. France's actions in Africa have been less than pleasant. China raped and pillaged Tibet. Care to reevaluate your anti-Americanism?

And you obviously don't know enough about America to be taken seriously.

el scorcho · 2003-04-14 20:33:14

Soph...I like how you invalidated Charno's claims about anti-Americanism and some of his "understanding" of our constitution; you saved me the trouble of having a screaming match with him .

However, he is right when he says that gun control is unconstitutional. The Second Amendment explicitly states: "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Gun control does just that: it infringes the right of the people to keep and bear arms. It is my understanding that ALL hindrances to gun ownership are forbidden by our constitution.

soph · 2003-04-14 20:42:37

I would have to disagree. People are allowed to keep and bear arms, but with regulations. If I were to scream "fire" in a movie theater, I would be arrested, but this does not mean that my freedom of speech is being infringed.

My understanding is that the fourth amendment leaves gun control up to the lawmakers. It never explicity says it is illegal, nor does it say it is legal. Interpretatively, it is not unreasonable to conclude that as long as gun ownership is allowed, then gun control is constitutional.

clark · 2003-04-15 06:30:36

Hardly free by the criteria of those who wrote the constitution.

Ah, the criteria of those free men was to be a rich white landowner. Shall we regress back to that wonderful example as well? Our fore fathers were some intelligent men, but they were ignorant and corrupt just like anyone else. If you think that their intitial assumptions are infalliable, then you're just a pathetic unthinking sychophant stuck on an ideal. Don't worry, you'll grow out of it.

And yes, I've heard the "living document" stuff before. But whats the point of the document if its so "alive" that there are laws that flatly contradict what it says?

Laws that contradict your understanding, your interpretation of the constution. Shall we allow ourselves to be governed forever by the good intentions of our ancestors who had no conception of what our lives would be like 250 some plus years later? If so, I'll be the first to put you in the stockade.

I guess, like the bible for the catholics, its all open to "interpretation".

Your parents must be so proud of you. You represent them well.

Palomar · 2003-04-15 08:12:51

*Ew, I just love it when people proclaim themselves "proudly anti-American"...all while gladly exercising their freedom of speech and freedom of expression; yeah, I guess they're not "proudly anti-American" enough to give up those American-originated rights.

Oh and Soph, don't expect an answer by certain parties as regards your challenge to them concerning the atrocities committed by Hitler and Stalin, and the crimes of other nations...so long as it's not America doing these things, it's "okay." Yep. Everyone else and all other nations on planet Earth are holy saints and absolutely wonderful...or so some folks would like us to believe.

Your replies have been excellent, Soph.

I admit the U.S.A. has its faults; we sure do. But it's obvious to see the hypocrisy and attempts at guilt induction by foreigners with their own shady agendas.

--Cindy

Palomar · 2003-04-15 09:17:19

Hardly free by the criteria of those who wrote the constitution.
Ah, the criteria of those free men was to be a rich white landowner.

*The Constitution was written in 1787. The Declaration of Independence was, of course, written in 1776; are you confusing the two?

Well, just so you know that at least 3 of the signers of the Declaration of Independence were anti-slavery: Benjamin Rush, M.D.:

Dr. Rush signed the Declaration of Independence.

Dr. Rush was a member of the Continental Congress, being elected
thereto on July 20, 1776.

Dr. Rush was opposed slavery. He wrote a pamphlet denouncing
slavery and helped to organize the Pennsylvania Society for Promoting
the Abolition of Slavery and the Relief of Free Negroes Unlawfully
Held in Bondage; this was the first anti-slavery society of America,
and he later became its president.

Benjamin Franklin was also anti-slavery (he had, earlier in life, owned slaves and later saw the wrongness of it and freed them). He also became President of the (Slavery) Abolitionist Society.

Thomas Paine, though not a signer of either the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution, denounced slavery as a monstrous evil. He wrote:

"Certainly one may, with as much reason and decency, plead for
murder, robbery, lewdness and barbarity, as for this practice."

He pointed out the hypocrisy of the American Colonies; how they
resented the attempts of the English to enslave the colonies and yet:
"with what consistency, or decency, do they complain so loudly of attempts
to enslave them while they hold so many hundred thousands in slavery,
and annually enslave many thousands more..."

Americans in the southern states did not like his opinion; neither
did some in the northern states. Slavery was, unfortunately, a
lucrative business and slaves were considered *property.* Paine's
opinions were considered the rantings of an insane man.

However, there were folks who agreed with him. I was surprised to
read that Thomas Jefferson (who, as most people know, did have slaves
and is considered a hypocrite in this regard) wrote an anti-slavery
paragraph for the Declaration of Independence! I am quite certain I
have never known of this before; if I had know of this previously, I
had forgotten it. However, the leaders (unnamed by Mr. Woodward) of
the movement for independence had the paragraph omitted (they were
afraid it would antagonize the Southern members so much they would
refuse to sign it) -- despite Jefferson's efforts to keep it in the
Declaration of Independence.

In 1775, shortly after Paine's anti-slavery article appeared,
opponents of slavery in Philadelphia, inspired by Paine, formed the
American Antislavery Society; it was the first association ever
organized for the purpose of abolishing slavery in this nation. We
have discussed this detail previously, but it merits repeating.

Why did Jefferson keep slaves after attempting to incorporate an ANTI-slavery paragraph into the DofI? The book I'm reading didn't say, and as I just learned this 2 days ago, I as yet don't know. One of my list members (Bruce) speculated that Jefferson kept his slaves because perhaps he was concerned they would have been rounded up and sold to someone who would treat them badly; Bruce speculates Jefferson may have been genuinely concerned for their well-being and felt he could best keep care of them...considering they had no genuine option of being free at that time. I can't answer for Jefferson, of course, and again -- I'm completely new to that piece of information and have essentially no background information regarding it or Jefferson's motives, so I'm at an impasse.

I just wanted to clear up some misconceptions regarding the U.S.A. Founding Fathers. Not all of them were racist elitist creeps.

--Cindy

Addendum: Neither Dr. Rush nor Thomas Paine ever owned slaves.

Gennaro · 2003-04-15 09:19:22

Hum... sorry for interfering in a debate that's already taken noteworthy steps in the direction of general confusion, but...

Is freedom of speech really an originally American idea? I thought it was a typically pagan, Roman, European, enlightenment, not to mention Voltairian sort of ideal.

Just had too I guess...

Palomar · 2003-04-15 09:25:00

Hum... sorry for interfering in a debate that's already taken noteworthy steps in the direction of general confusion, but...
Is freedom of speech really an originally American idea? I thought it was a typically pagan, Roman, European, enlightenment, not to mention Voltairian sort of ideal.

*What I meant was that "freedom of speech and freedom of expression" were two phrases first penned on legal documents in the U.S.A.

Certainly the Enlightenment philosophers, including Voltaire of course, were pro-free speech, freedom of the press, etc. But their governments (France, England, Austria and Switzerland primarily) either did not officially recognize such freedoms or, in the case of England and Austria under Frederick the Great's rule, these freedoms were not stated as being absolutely free and totally encompassing; they had limits and boundaries stated by law.

Sorry for any confusion.

--Cindy

clark · 2003-04-15 09:27:05

Well, three out of how many signatures ought to say it all.

Not all were racist or elitist, most though were.

Palomar · 2003-04-15 09:30:31

Well, three out of how many signatures ought to say it all.
Not all were racist or elitist, most though were.

*Better 3 than none.

--Cindy

Gennaro · 2003-04-15 09:50:40

Thanks Cindy!

Know what, I deem "freedom of speech and freedom of expression" an ancient, truly indoeuropean idea that re-emerged from oriental true faith suppression to its classical glory with the American constitution.
In Rome, any faith or philosophical theory was tolerated as long as the rule of the emperor was acknowledged through the custom of sacrifice.
Same thing really.

Clearing of the air is of course the prerequisite for any functional government as for personal dignity.

Making an example of the prevalence of the idea during the era of enlightenment, freedom of speech (less slander and promulgating of vice) was established at least by the Swedish act of freedom for the press in 1766.
Seems like in some ways, the American constitution wasn't first with everything.

Palomar · 2003-04-15 10:08:38

Making an example of the prevalence of the idea during the era of enlightenment, freedom of speech (less slander and promulgating of vice) was established at least by the Swedish act of freedom for the press in 1766.
Seems like in some ways, the American constitution wasn't first with everything.

*Thanks for the information on Swedish freedom of the press. Sweden, unfortunately, isn't discussed much in most of the books I have regarding the 18th century.

Frederick the Great, upon his ascension to the throne of Prussia, did allow for much greater measures of freedom of speech and expression than his father ever allowed; in fact, during the early years of his reign, he even allowed printed criticisms of himself to be tacked onto walls and hitching posts. Sadly, he later began retracting some of those freedoms.

Apparently Holland had quite a measure of freedom of the press (Holland, like Sweden, isn't extensively discussed in many books of the period either), because Voltaire and many of his colleagues were continually sending to Amsterdam for publication of their material...which then had to be brought into France and pass the censors. Amsterdam is usually mentioned as the prime location for publication from the early 1700s up until the mid- to late 1750s. In fact, Frederick as prince (while his father still ruled Prussia) had to have his "Anti-Machiavel" published in Amsterdam because his father forbade it; Voltaire oversaw the publication. Amsterdam figures prominently as regards freedom of the press in Europe for that time.

--Cindy

Charno · 2003-04-15 22:01:07

Gun control does violate the second amendment.. the intent of the second amendment (not the "reinterpreted" intent) was to allow people to carry weapons on their person at all times.

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined or determined to commit crimes. Such laws only make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assassins; they serve to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." -Thomas Jefferson

"The militia is the natural defense of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpations of power by rulers. It is against sound policy for a free people to keep up large military establishments and standing armies in time of peace, both from the enormous expenses, with which they are attended, and the facile means, which they afford to ambitious and unprincipled rulers, to subvert the government, or trample upon the rights of the people." - Joseph Story

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe." - Noah Webster

"Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American... The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people." Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788

"...the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation. . . (where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." -James Madison, the Federalist papers.

Notice the hatred of gun control, and a standing army as well. I guarantee you every single founding father would be dead set against American policies today. Washington warned against "entangling alliances" and I dont think they even conceived of America having a military overseas.

soph · 2003-04-16 04:34:44

The second amendment was also written when America had just received independence due to militias, without which, the country would not have been able to defend itself. This is obsolete today. We have a military, and don't need civilian militias to defend ourselves.

From findlaw.com:
" In spite of extensive recent discussion and much legislative action with respect to regulation of the purchase, possession, and transportation of firearms, as well as proposals to substantially curtail ownership of firearms, there is no definitive resolution by the courts of just what right the Second Amendment protects."

They may have privately been against gun control, but that was before the machine gun, pistol, Mine bullet, etc. And, they did not write that gun control is explicitly illegal, either. So, modern interpretations are applied. Notice, that most people, given training and a law-abiding background, can own a gun, which follows the text of the Bill of Rights (which are Amendments, themselves) We are not bound by the personal desires of 18th century founding fathers.

The exact text of the second amendment:

" No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law. "

In peace, and in war. Obviously, this means that there are peacetime soldiers. You were saying?

clark · 2003-04-16 10:14:27

You want a well armed 'milita'?
You want no limitations of gun control?

Go to Afghanistan.

Or, if you want somewhere closer, I suggest south central LA.

Go there and see what life is like when people run around with guns.

Not rifles. Not weapons for self defense. Not bearing arms to ward off aggresive governments.

Just guns in the hands of people.

Just the other day I listened to a radio report regarding a drive by shooting with an AK-47 at a local highschool. One student was killed, three others injured.

I hear reports like this all the time.

Your logic, your arguments, would have us suppose that more people with guns would reduce crimes like these. It just flies in the face of logic and is the least bit sensible.

Ever heard of the McCoys? Blood fueds? Vengence slayings? Crimes of passion?

Unfettered access to lethal long range weapons is a serious problem. But then, I guess if everyone had a gun, we wouldn't have to worry about snipers either...

The founders were justified in theri time for their position, but those justifications do not hold up entirely after 250 years.

Sure, people should be able to defend themselves- we in the end are our own last line of defense when all is sadi and done. yet there should be limits to what weapons we can use becuase some just pose more of a danger than the the promise of security it might make.

Cobra Commander · 2003-04-17 17:35:54

As I for one am rather tired of the gun control debate, this will be my last post on the matter here. Rejoice.

If the argument is about the Second Amendment's meaning, the people who deny an individual right to bear arms are just flat out wrong. The amendment is clear enough and the writings of the founders clarify any ambiguity that might exist. Any assertion to the contrary is simply not correct.

If the question is whether the general population should be allowed to own and carry weapons there is room for debate. However in this case, as the Founding Fathers understood, if weapons are prohibited only the criminals will be armed. Yeah, I've seen the bumper sticker too, but it's true.

In short, advocates of gun control must in some form renounce the Bill of Rights if their position is to be remotely defensible. And even then, they'll still be wrong.

As for firearms in a Mars colony, obviously no one needs a .50 caliber machine gun, though I do recall Zubrin's mention of the effect of a .50 cal bullet on the likely materials of a Martian pressure dome (Kevlar, the same stuff they make bullet-proof vests out of). Hardly a cause for panic, the resulting hole would take days or weeks to depressurize the dome. "The Case for Mars", I believe around page 30, 33, something like that if anyone wants to look it up. Based on that, the threat posed by the presence of a 9mm handgun is literally no worse than it is on here on Earth where the threat is from the operator, not the device. Besides, if anyone wanted to kill a few people in a Martian colony there are much better ways that using a gun, and if the dome can't stand up to a few shots I would strongly advise not living in it given the punishment it's likely to be subjected to by the enviroment. Claiming such colonies should prohibit weapons out of concern for the integrity of the dome is asinine. If an individual doesn't wants guns on Mars that's fine, but they really need a better argument.

Finally, it's easy to stop people from taking guns to Mars, but projectile weapons are easy to make. Particularly if you have access to metal pipes and pressurized gases. People with weapons are a reality on Earth and the same will be true of Mars. Trying to ban them will only make it worse. If a people are to be free and secure they must be armed, deal with it.

Rant concluded. Carry on.

soph · 2003-04-17 18:21:57

Cobra: by gun control, I mean regulation (i.e. permits, not allowing felons to buy guns, etc.). I don't mean banning firearms.

I do think that anything more dangerous than a 9 mm or shotgun should be banned to the general public.

People don't need anything more than a handgun (which I doubt they really need at all). But to allow Uzis or machine guns to be sold in your average gun store is also asking for trouble.

But again, Amendments have been nullified before. I don't see any reason why the 2nd Amendment should be taboo. Freedom of speech and freedom of press are one thing, freedom to own a dangerous weapon is another. I'm conflicted. On one hand, I think a modern interpretation (without the pressures of British invasion, and the dangerous frontier) may be in order, allowing regulated access to small arms, may be in order. Gun fanatics like to rant against fingerprint locks- I think that these are the way to go to ensure safety.

Cobra Commander · 2003-04-17 19:18:05

Blatantly defying a promise I made just one post up. I feel like a politician... Damn.

Cobra: by gun control, I mean regulation (i.e. permits, not allowing felons to buy guns, etc.). I don't mean banning firearms.

Not allowing felons to buy guns is sensible and was understood in principle by the founders of this country. More recently, the Gun Control Act of 1964 takes care of that. A convicted felon can be sent to prison for ten years simply for touching or attempting to acquire a gun. If they go into a gunshop to do it they triple that (attempt to acquire, possesion if they touch it, and lying on the form you have to sign stating you are not a convicted felon) . We don't need new laws for this.

As for permits, why? If you are not a convicted felon, not mentally ill, not an illegal alien (all covered in the '64 law) then why shouldn't you be allowed to exercise your Constitutional (and arguably natural) right to possess the means to defend yourself? Having to acquire a permit is not only infringing on Constitutional rights (do you have to get a permit to exercise free speech? ) but it's redundant.

But again, Amendments have been nullified before. I don't see any reason why the 2nd Amendment should be taboo.

Dangerous ground, dismantling the Bill of Rights.

Freedom of speech and freedom of press are one thing, freedom to own a dangerous weapon is another.

The former depends on the latter for its long-term existence. If you have an opinion and I have a contradictory one and a gun, who's going to be heard? I know this sounds simple and uncivilized, but when you break down civilization, law, rights and every other construct of society it comes down to the ability to exercise force. If you lose that ability you become dependent on the good-will of others and humanity has a poor record in that regard.

Gun fanatics like to rant against fingerprint locks- I think that these are the way to go to ensure safety.

Unless you need the weapon quickly to defend yourself. I know that somewhere out there is some poor bastard that was found dead in his home holding a gun with a trigger-lock on it. (Seriously, I've seen the police report on one such case. ) I've never locked up a gun, yet no weapon in my care has ever been used to harm anyone intentionally or otherwise. These locks are a gimmick, and a dangerous one at that. The way to ensure safety is keep guns from criminals (by enforcing the laws we already have, not making new ones) and to stop villifying firearms as some talisman that channels evil and death and start treating them as simply potentially dangerous tools.

I am certainly not a "gun fanatic" by the way. I don't have an arsenal hidden at home, nor do I oppose any form of regulation. But the reality needs to be acknowledged that laws do control the behavior of criminals who by definition do not obey them. Do we need to be armed to hold back a foreign invasion? No. But a home invasion, that happens all too often.

Josh Cryer · 2003-04-17 20:52:07

The reality also needs to be acknowledged that society is responsible for the criminals it makes.

And it deserves them, too.

I think that's a quote from someone wise (though discombobulated), but I'm too lazy to look it up.

clark · 2003-04-19 10:23:18

Cobra,

Your points are well taken, and they can't be avoided. However, let's put the issue of constutional rights aside for a moment. Let's put the issue of inherent right for self defense as well. These are arbitrary arguments, circular in a sense. It's like talking about your god versus my god versus some other guys god. Everyone is right, everyone is wrong, and no one can get their message across

So, we can all accept that we should be able to protect ourselves from those who would wish to hurt us. Right?
So from this, we extrapolate to having a 'gun'. Why not go further, to the point of absurdity though? Why not a bomb? Of course we all reject the idea of people running around with bombs, after all, it serves no *positive* purpose other than to pose a danger to everyone else around.

Not so with a gun. It is used for sporting events. It is used as a way of life for some people. Other use it as a sense of protection. Some people even collect them, just like others collect stamps.

Someone who uses a bomb for a sense of self protection of course isn't really showing much concern for others who may get injured. We can accept that isn't the same with a gun.

Now, we're in an enclosed habitat. High urban density, lots of machinery. People all over the place, just walking around. In a situation like this, guns pose a greater risk to the general populace.

You're right, having to make an argument against guns in a space colony on the premise that the habitats are too fragile is an asinine argument. Yet so is the argument for allowing guns in a space colony.

The realistic view, the wise view, is if a society is going to allow it's citizenry to run around with weapons, then it behooves everyone to ensure that said citizens are trained in the operation and saftey of the weapons.

We require people to receive training in the operation of a motor wehicle, which kills just as readily, why not for guns?

We assume that everyone will handle their weapons reasonably, and safely?

Would you assume that everyone will drive responsibly?

Is there a difference?

Perhaps it is different, after all, a gun, all you need to do is point and pull a trigger. Anyone can do that. I feel safe already...

Cobra Commander · 2003-04-19 18:49:14

You're right, having to make an argument against guns in a space colony on the premise that the habitats are too fragile is an asinine argument. Yet so is the argument for allowing guns in a space colony.

I see what you're saying. My take on it is that the burden to produce a clear argument is not on why we should allow weapons in a colony, but why we shouldn't. On Earth I see no reason for blanket prohibitions of weapons and until someone makes a very good argument as to why it's different in the enclosed enviroment of a Martian colony I see no reason to amend that view. If someone makes a case I'm glad to hear it, but so far that dome argument and a more general fear of damage to machinery is the best I've been confronted with.

The realistic view, the wise view, is if a society is going to allow it's citizenry to run around with weapons, then it behooves everyone to ensure that said citizens are trained in the operation and saftey of the weapons.

In my zeal to defend my position I may have given the impression that I don't see a need for proper training. Clearly, handing someone a firearm and expecting them to intuitively know how to safely handle it is unrealistic. However, such training does not need to be involved in a "permit" process, wherein you take a course and receive permission from the authorities to acquire and carry a weapon, complete with application processes, administrative fees, ID cards and the like. Proper training can take many forms, particularly since basic gun safety doesn't take a lot of time to teach.

It just occured to me that gun safety and basic markmanship could be taught in public schools. I know I'm going to give some the impression that I'm a gun-crazed wacko by even suggesting this, but why not? We offer driver's training in high school, why not firearms safety?

We assume that everyone will handle their weapons reasonably, and safely?

I for one assume no such thing, but if we are to be a free people then we have to give everyone the benefit of the doubt until they give reason to do otherwise.

Perhaps it is different, after all, a gun, all you need to do is point and pull a trigger. Anyone can do that. I feel safe already...

There are times, navigating crowded streets at rush-hour, when I'd feel safer if all I had to worry about was some incompetent boob trying to shoot me with a weapon he has never used before.

soph · 2003-04-19 19:00:09

It just occured to me that gun safety and basic markmanship could be taught in public schools.

Do you know how many kids are drug addicts in schools? Go ahead, teach them how to use guns, and make the situation that much worse!

No, driving serves a practical, everyday purpose. Unless you hunt, or happen to be next to your gun as a robber enters your home, and pick it up before they do, there is no real reason to weigh high school students, already burdened with getting into college, with gun training. A car is needed to get to work. What purpose could a gun possibly serve the general high school student?

Cobra Commander · 2003-04-19 19:14:41

No, driving serves a practical, everyday purpose. Unless you hunt, or happen to be next to your gun as a robber enters your home, and pick it up before they do, there is no real reason to weigh high school students, already burdened with getting into college, with gun training. A car is needed to get to work. What purpose could a gun possibly serve the general high school student?

Do you know how many kids are drug addicts in schools? Go ahead, teach them how to use guns, and make the situation that much worse!

In that case, we shouldn't teach the little stoners to drive either.

No, driving serves a practical, everyday purpose...

I take it you've never known anyone who has escaped becoming a victim because they had a gun. A weapon serves a very practical, but fortunately not everyday purpose.

...Unless you hunt, or happen to be next to your gun as a robber enters your home, and pick it up before they do, there is no real reason to weigh high school students, already burdened with getting into college, with gun training. A car is needed to get to work. What purpose could a gun possibly serve the general high school student?

First, gun training isn't that hard or time-consuming. We're not talking about advanced calculus here, it could be done in as little as one or two classes.

Second, I never suggested giving high school students guns to carry around, merely teaching them basic safety in controlled conditions. This is less dangerous than taking first-time drivers out on public streets.

soph · 2003-04-19 19:23:59

In that case, we shouldn't teach the little stoners to drive either.

No, stoners can work. People hardly ever use a car as a killing tool (intentionally). A gun, now that's quite different.

I take it you've never known anyone who has escaped becoming a victim because they had a gun. A weapon serves a very practical, but fortunately not everyday purpose.

I take it you don't know that the chances of getting shot with your own gun are at best, roughly equal to the chances of the gun saving the owner.

First, gun training isn't that hard or time-consuming. We're not talking about advanced calculus here, it could be done in as little as one or two classes.

Enough kids have trouble learning to read and write. And I would hope that something as dangerous as a gun would require more than 2 or 3 classes. A driver's lisence requires two years of driving, and 30 hours of drivers ed, plus a road test.

Are you going to tell me that you would hold guns to a lighter standard than cars?

Cobra Commander · 2003-04-19 20:21:22

In that case, we shouldn't teach the little stoners to drive either.
No, stoners can work. People hardly ever use a car as a killing tool (intentionally). A gun, now that's quite different.

Yet far more people die in auto accidents than firearms related incidents.

I take it you don't know that the chances of getting shot with your own gun are at best, roughly equal to the chances of the gun saving the owner.

That's a myth. If you look at the data that statement is so far off the mark that it can't possibly be attributed to anything but outright fabrication. This sort of propaganda is put out by the same people who take statistics of rival 17-year-old gang members killing each other in turf wars and referring to it as "children killed by guns" rather than criminals killing each other with guns.

Enough kids have trouble learning to read and write. And I would hope that something as dangerous as a gun would require more than 2 or 3 classes. A driver's lisence requires two years of driving, and 30 hours of drivers ed, plus a road test.

Guns aren't that complex, it's a simple piece of machinery. The basics don't take much time to explain.
As for the driver's license analogy, the requirements are rather arbitrary. While you cite the above requirements, those in my state are significantly more lax, yet Michigan's auto accident rate is no worse than the rest of the country.

Are you going to tell me that you would hold guns to a lighter standard than cars?

Based solely on the number of fatalities each are involved in, yes. But they really aren't comparable. You carry a gun in case you may need it. That might happen once in your life, or never. You drive a car every day, possibly for several hours out of the day. The potential for accidental death is astronomically higher.

Of course this all ignores the basic point that the people who do use guns to kill people out of malice will have them regardless of the regulations, so we might as well keep them light so law-abiding citizens can be armed as well.

Think of it like this: Software companies continually increase the copy-protection on their products, yet the cracks always follow the offical release by weeks, sometimes days. Nothing they do will ever stop software piracy. Same basic concept.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#26 2003-04-14 19:38:57

Re: Draft Laws for Mars - Laws for the Peaceful Settlement of Mars

#27 2003-04-14 20:33:14

Re: Draft Laws for Mars - Laws for the Peaceful Settlement of Mars

#28 2003-04-14 20:42:37

Re: Draft Laws for Mars - Laws for the Peaceful Settlement of Mars

#29 2003-04-15 06:30:36

Re: Draft Laws for Mars - Laws for the Peaceful Settlement of Mars

#30 2003-04-15 08:12:51

Re: Draft Laws for Mars - Laws for the Peaceful Settlement of Mars

#31 2003-04-15 09:17:19

Re: Draft Laws for Mars - Laws for the Peaceful Settlement of Mars

#32 2003-04-15 09:19:22

Re: Draft Laws for Mars - Laws for the Peaceful Settlement of Mars

#33 2003-04-15 09:25:00

Re: Draft Laws for Mars - Laws for the Peaceful Settlement of Mars

#34 2003-04-15 09:27:05

Re: Draft Laws for Mars - Laws for the Peaceful Settlement of Mars

#35 2003-04-15 09:30:31

Re: Draft Laws for Mars - Laws for the Peaceful Settlement of Mars

#36 2003-04-15 09:50:40

Re: Draft Laws for Mars - Laws for the Peaceful Settlement of Mars

#37 2003-04-15 10:08:38

Re: Draft Laws for Mars - Laws for the Peaceful Settlement of Mars

#38 2003-04-15 22:01:07

Re: Draft Laws for Mars - Laws for the Peaceful Settlement of Mars

#39 2003-04-16 04:34:44

Re: Draft Laws for Mars - Laws for the Peaceful Settlement of Mars

#40 2003-04-16 10:14:27

Re: Draft Laws for Mars - Laws for the Peaceful Settlement of Mars

#41 2003-04-17 17:35:54

Re: Draft Laws for Mars - Laws for the Peaceful Settlement of Mars

#42 2003-04-17 18:21:57

Re: Draft Laws for Mars - Laws for the Peaceful Settlement of Mars

#43 2003-04-17 19:18:05

Re: Draft Laws for Mars - Laws for the Peaceful Settlement of Mars

#44 2003-04-17 20:52:07

Re: Draft Laws for Mars - Laws for the Peaceful Settlement of Mars

#45 2003-04-19 10:23:18

Re: Draft Laws for Mars - Laws for the Peaceful Settlement of Mars

#46 2003-04-19 18:49:14

Re: Draft Laws for Mars - Laws for the Peaceful Settlement of Mars

#47 2003-04-19 19:00:09

Re: Draft Laws for Mars - Laws for the Peaceful Settlement of Mars

#48 2003-04-19 19:14:41

Re: Draft Laws for Mars - Laws for the Peaceful Settlement of Mars

#49 2003-04-19 19:23:59

Re: Draft Laws for Mars - Laws for the Peaceful Settlement of Mars

#50 2003-04-19 20:21:22

Re: Draft Laws for Mars - Laws for the Peaceful Settlement of Mars

Board footer